Appeal No. 2004-0479
Application No. 09/780,864
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the
claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence
or argument shift to Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445,
24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472,
223 USPQ at 788. An obviousness analysis commences with a
review and consideration of all pertinent evidence and
arguments. "In reviewing the [E]xaminer's decision on appeal,
the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and
argument." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at
1444. "[T]he Board must not only assure that the requisite
findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also
explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to
support the agency's conclusion." In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
With respect to Cambron, Appellants argue that because
Cambron's description of Fig. 2 in column 4, lines 6-9 states
that the catheter is attached to the hub, Cambron does not
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007